Euthanasia Pros and Cons: Should People Have the Right to Die?

Since completing university, Paul has worked as a librarian, teacher, and freelance writer. Born in the UK, he currently lives in Florida.

Should people have the right to die? This article looks at the pros and cons of euthanasia. | Source

The right to die debate is an emotive and contentious one. The arguments are usually focused around the ethics and legalities of allowing people who are terminally ill to request and receive assisted dying.

Often the biggest problems exists around who should decide if the euthanasia should be carried out, especially if the person in question is not in a fit state to make their own decision for reasons of illness or injury.

Euthanasia, or ‘Mercy killing’ as it is sometimes also known as, is legal or partially legal in some countries, such as Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands. In practice, however, even in the countries where it is illegal, the law is often not enforced.

Euthanasia didn’t become a major issue until the 20th Century when advances in medicine meant that doctors were able to keep hospital patients alive for very long periods of time, even when they had lost many of their basic bodily functions through sickness or injury.

Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia have been profound ethical issues confronting doctors since the birth of Western medicine, more than 2,000 years ago.

— Ezekiel Emanuel

There are essentially two forms that euthanasia can take: ‘Active’ and ‘Passive’.

Active euthanasia is where somebody is effectively killed – they may, for instance, be given an overdose of morphine.

Passive euthanasia is where a person dies because the medicine or treatment that is keeping them alive is withdrawn or stopped.

Religious attitudes towards the question of should people have the right to die vary. Islam and the Roman Catholic church are very much opposed, whereas protestants and people who follow the Japanese Shinto religion tend to be more sympathetic to the idea of mercy killing.

The Dalai Lama has stated that although Buddhism generally considers euthanasia to be wrong, there are exceptional cases and that these matters should be considered on a case by case basis.

Below are the main for and against arguments that people use in the right to die debate.

British king George V was given a fatal dose of morphine and cocaine by his physician, Lord Dawson. He was suffering from cardio-respiratory failure and the drugs were intended to hasten his death. The incident was kept secret for fifty years. | Source

If I had terminal cancer, I had a few weeks to live, I was in tremendous amount of pain - if they just effectively wanted to turn off the switch and legalise that by legalising euthanasia, I'd want that.

— John Key

Pros of Euthanasia

People should be allowed to choose – there could not be a more fundamental issue of individual liberty than the right to decide whether to live or to die. Control over one's own body should be a fundamental right.

Euthanasia can reduce or prevent human suffering by relieving people who are suffering extreme pain. Forcing people to suffer against their will is wrong.

It can also relieve suffering where someone’s quality of life has become drastically low.

It can free up health care resources to help someone else who is severely ill.

Modern medicine can often keep people alive indefinitely, even if they are not conscious, it is therefore imperative that rules for when it is right to end a life are explored, rather than a blanket ban on termination under certain circumstances.

Euthanasia does not mean a lack of caring or compassion, on the contrary, the patient's needs are put first.

Allowing living wills opens up the possibility of people determining themselves whether their life is artificially extended after encountering serious illness or health issues.

Controversial billboard made by Exit International, an organization who campaign for the legalization of euthanasia. | Source

Cons of Euthanasia

The idea that every human life is precious and has value is undermined by euthanasia.

Most medical professionals do not want to be involved with killing patients, as it is the total opposite to what they see as their purpose, which is healing people and saving lives.

There is a danger that euthanasia could be used to control health care costs, with the patients needs and wishes taking second place.

Whatever the theory, disputes over mercy killings can often be very difficult in practice, as it is not always clear what the patient wants, or is in their interests. It is likely that more euthanasia requests would result in more extended legal battles. Take, for instance, the case of the Florida woman, Terri Schiavo, who was in a coma for years. Her husband wanted the hospital to remove her feeding tube and her parents fought a legal battle to try to stop that happening.

If voluntary euthanasia is allowed, then there is a danger of it developing into a slippery slope situation where say, sick elderly people end up having their lives terminated because selfish relatives don’t want to look after them, or out of greed for inheritance money.

Euthanasia has a dark history and was used in Nazi Germany for the extermination of children and adults that the government found undesirable, such as the disabled. Keeping it illegal means that no government can ever use it for political means.

Of all the arguments against voluntary euthanasia, the most influential is the 'slippery slope': once we allow doctors to kill patients, we will not be able to limit the killing to those who want to die.

— Peter Singer

Dr. Felix Adler was the first prominent American to argue for allowing suicide in cases of chronic illness. He was also Chairman of the National Child Labor Comittee. This photograph of him dates from around 1913. | Source

Patients who are being kept alive by technology and want to end their lives already have a recognized constitutional right to stop any and all medical interventions, from respirators to antibiotics. They do not need physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia.

Do you think euthanasia should be legal?

Questions & Answers

Questions must be on-topic, written with proper grammar usage, and understandable to a wide audience.

Question:

Is involuntary euthanasia legal?

Answer:

Involuntary euthanasia is widely considered to be a crime. Although the concept of euthanasia had advocates in a number of countries, including the USA, in the early 20th Century, it fell out of grace after German Nazi atrocities in the 1930's and 1940's. During this dark period, many mentally and physically disabled people, as well as incurably ill and elderly people, were terminated on the grounds that they were a threat to the well being of the Aryan race. The Nazis later widened their program to include the euthanizing of people from ethnic groups that they believed to be inferior.

Comments

No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

sending

aaaf@ebay.bob

13 months ago

Euthanasia should be illegal. It simply gives to much power to doctors, and it could become extremely bad. It takes away human morals. It is taking life from someone, just because they wish and takes away from our advances in medication today. It throws that all out the window, and will make us 1 step closer to becoming a poor and vulnerable country.

Dr.Dave

14 months ago

WTF, work in a alzheimer's facility and than tell me "NO

Kris

16 months ago

I belive that euthanasia should be approved by the government. A life of a particular person if he or she is suffering with only 1 percent of

buggyperson

21 months ago

i believe that if a person does not have the ability to say wether they want to die or not than the default should be not

Stail

2 years ago

I think everyone shoud have equal euthanisia

annon

2 years ago

My father in law is in the final stages of severe vascular demetia he is immobile and has to have every thing done for him, he is looked after by his daughters that take it in shifts to live there and look after him he is violent they often get a thump in the face from him isnt this a case of giving him something to help in to the next life, ? he has NO QUALITY of life whatsoever, the family wish he would go to sleep and not wake up, If he was aware i am sure he would want that too, the law is an ass, if i could give him something to help him on his way I WOULD but without me being imprisoned for it LIFE for him and his daughters is HELL

Greg Schweizer

3 years agofrom Corona, California.

My reasoning for wanting to have the choice to die is, I have seen too many people that can't take care of themselves and just sit all day like a vegetable. All they are doing is existing and someone else is having to take care of them. I, personally, don't want to exist like that. When I can't take care of myself I would rather be dead. I will be 70 in May, 2017, and the thought of just existing is the one thing that scares me. It should be by choice and that would be MY choice.

Mike

3 years ago

There is another vital reason for being against euthanasia that was missed in this article. Namely, that euthanasia is not the only option for alleviating pain. Palliative care involves caring for people at the end of their lives who are suffering from extreme physical pain. Rather than killing the person, palliative care kills the pain, which is the real reason people promote euthanasia in the first place.

Greg Schweizer

5 years agofrom Corona, California.

In my eyes there is a big difference in "living" and "existing". Greg

Sanxuary

5 years ago

I by no means advocate that suicide should be legal but everyone will face death at some point and have to decide that modern medicine may be keeping me alive, but my quality of life is past living. We use to not have the problem of modern medicine determining when to move on. It was hard to watch a relative of mine move on because this person decided to no longer seek treatment. Modern medicine gave this person another 20 years but still you our thinking that person could be here. In reality this person had stopped functioning quite some time ago and I was already missing that person every time I visited. In this case the person had simply stopped seeking treatment but the whole question of when and for what reason is an interesting one that has to many ifs. We do not call it suicide when you perish saving some one else's life. Then again if medical treatment will cost a million dollars at what point is the price to high. Is it worth it if you live in pain and can not function the rest of your life?

teddybear

6 years ago

I feel that it should be your choice to live with pain or die in defeat.

Hitler

7 years ago

If I was alive and I won, I would have had this legalized.

H C Palting

8 years agofrom East Coast

Your hub raises some great points. Good topic and hub.

Greg Schweizer

8 years agofrom Corona, California.

Hi Paul, I wrote a hub on the same subject about "choice". On the con side there is the one about the Dr's wanting to heal the patients. There is also the question that arises there. Do they want to heal them or play God and just prove they can keep them alive no matter what? There is also the question, "Are they able to heal them, or do they just want to keep that money coming in as long as possible". There are times when there is NO hope for a person and they still keep them "alive", if you want to call some of the cases living, and the person is in constant pain, which also costs money to relieve the pain. It's terrible to think that we make people suffer just for the good old dollar, but some do. BUT, it should be only the patients choice or the Dr's insurance that there is no hope, if the Dr is honest with himself and the family. Greg

Connect with us

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, soapboxie.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)

Google AdSense Host API

This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

Facebook Login

You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

Maven

This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.

Conversion Tracking Pixels

We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics

Author Google Analytics

This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)

Comscore

ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)

Amazon Tracking Pixel

Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)